As the delimitation row continues to simmer, former Lok Sabha Secretary General P D T Achary tells The Indian Express that it is the job of the Delimitation Commission and not the government to decide the allocation of seats to states as per Article 81 (2) (a). The Commission, he says, is supposed to be an independent body free of any interference from the Executive.
Recommending a new formula for the distribution of seats among states to assuage the fears of the Southern states, Achary says this requires wide consultation with experts and cannot be decided in Parliament in three days, as the government attempted to do. Excerpts:
* Is it constitutionally permissible for the government to announce both the maximum number of seats in the Lok Sabha and their distribution between the states before the Delimitation Commission has been constituted?
Parliament determines the total number of seats in the Lok Sabha. It is done through a Constitution amendment Bill moved by the government. So, the government will first decide the number and then come before Parliament with a proposal to amend Article 81.
The Delimitation Commission’s task is to determine the number of seats each state should get as per the formula contained in Article 81 (2) (a). The other job of this Commission is to readjust the division of constituencies according to the number of seats each state gets. Therefore, the government can come before Parliament with the proposal to increase the total number of seats in the House. But the 50% increase can only be decided by the Commission and not the government.
* Is the Delimitation Commission an independent body or is it supposed to take precise instructions from the political executive?
It is an independent constitutional body free to carry out its mandate without any interference from the Executive.
* The Delimitation Bill brought by the government, which has lapsed now, said the recommendations of the Commission shall not be challenged in any court of law. Is the award of the Delimitation Commission beyond judicial review?
As per the law, the Commission’s decisions are not to be challenged in a court. When the final orders of the Commission are notified in the Gazette, it acquires the force of law. So far as judicial review is concerned, it is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the Kishorchandra Chhaganlal Rathod case (2024) held that judicial review is available if the orders of the Commission are “manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable to constitutional values”.
* Was it constitutionally possible for the government to introduce a Bill saying that the latest Census data at the time of the setting up of the Delimitation Commission — meaning, the 2011 Census — be used for delimitation and yet ensure a uniform 50% increase in Lok Sabha seats per state, irrespective of differential growths of population across states?
First of all, it makes no sense to amend the Constitution to enable Parliament to choose any old and outdated data on population. Article 82 provides a stable framework and a sequence for dealing with the Census, delimitation, etc. The Bill which fell through in the House on April 17 sought to destabilise this arrangement. Of course, Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution except the basic structure. That is not the issue here. Why should Parliament alter a stable arrangement provided in the Constitution for the sake of choosing an outdated Census figure, especially when the new Census operations have already started? That has not been answered.
* Is it necessary to change the formula for seat allocation between states — the constitutional principle is one person, one vote, one value — in Article 81, for the southern states to have a higher weightage in representation despite their population growing at a slower pace?
The formula in Article 81 (2) (a) enjoins that the population base of every constituency in the country shall be the same as far as practicable. Accordingly, as per the 1971 Census, the population base of each constituency was fixed at 10 lakh. But now the demographic picture in the country has changed drastically and this formula will not work any longer. But what is the new formula that the government has in mind? There is no clarity on this point. The most curious thing is that in the amendment Bill, this formula under 81(2) (a) has been retained. This would mean the population base of constituencies will have to be determined on the basis of this formula. In fact, at present, the average population of a parliamentary constituency is said to be around 31 lakh, whereas in Kerala it is around 17 lakh. How will we find a reasonable population base under this formula? This needs to be studied by experts first, and then state governments and all political parties should be consulted, and a rational formula should be devised that should replace the present formula under Article 81. It should, of course, be considered whether population should be the only criterion or if other factors should also be considered. In any case, it is not a matter which the House can decide in a two or three-day special sitting.
* What is the way forward that both upholds the Constitution and provides confidence to the southern states that their federal interests are protected?
It is a very sensitive matter. It cannot be settled by promising a few seats to states in the southern region. What is required is a rational, scientific formula for dividing the Lok Sabha seats among the states. Although there are diversities, this country is one. Nevertheless, there are regions which are at different levels of development: economic, social and cultural. Parliamentary representation is an important marker of political status in the nation. The constitutional system should not create a situation where any region may nurse serious grievances about political domination by other regions.
PDT Achary is a former secretary general of the Lok Sabha. 
Share
